Randall W. Lalande

The Crown applied to have Jean-Claude Breton declared a dangerous offender under section 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence.

Breton had been convicted of eight charges, including forcible confinement and assault.

The court considered psychiatric evidence, including reports from Dr. Treena Wilkie and testimony from Dr. Amil Joseph, as well as Breton's extensive criminal history and institutional conduct.

Despite defence arguments regarding treatability and the unreliability of some assessments, the court found that Breton met the criteria for a dangerous offender, exhibiting a pattern of repetitive and aggressive behaviour and a high likelihood of future violent recidivism.

The court concluded there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser sentence would adequately protect the public.

A custody and access dispute between separated parents regarding their child, Jarvis Lebrun.

The mother sought joint custody with primary residence and liberal access for the father.

The father sought to maintain the status quo with the child residing primarily with him.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child's interests.

After considering the child's clear and consistent preference to reside with the mother, the support system available to the mother, and the less-than-ideal circumstances of the father's care arrangement, the court awarded joint custody with primary residence to the mother and liberal access to the father.

The accused pleaded guilty to break and enter with assault with a weapon, possession of a schedule 1 substance, and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The accused was released on strict conditions pending sentencing but breached those conditions by removing his GPS ankle monitor and fleeing court.

The court imposed a sentence of 22 months custody for the break and enter charge, 3 months concurrent for other charges, and 24 months probation with conditions including abstinence from illicit drugs, employment requirements, and no contact with victims.

The court considered COVID-19 impacts on incarceration but found the jail conditions at Sudbury were adequately managed.

The accused, an Indigenous woman with a history of trauma, abuse, and substance addiction, was sentenced following guilty pleas to impaired driving causing bodily harm, possession of cocaine, failing to comply with bail conditions, and theft.

The court imposed a blended sentence consisting of 24 days intermittent custody on weekends for impaired driving, a four-month conditional sentence for drug possession, concurrent probation orders, a three-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

The sentencing decision applied Gladue principles, recognizing systemic disadvantages and the offender's efforts toward rehabilitation while balancing denunciation and deterrence.

Detour Gold Corporation pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death following the death of Denis Millette, a 52-year-old millwright who died from acute cyanide intoxication via skin absorption on June 3, 2015.

The death resulted from the corporation's failure to implement proper safety protocols, including inadequate training on cyanide hazards, lack of proper personal protective equipment, absence of standard operating procedures for maintenance work on the InLine Leach Reactor, and failure to ensure emergency personnel were trained to respond to cyanide exposure.

The court imposed a restitution order of $805,333 to the victim's spouse and a monetary fine of $1.4 million, with total financial consequences exceeding $2.5 million.

L'accusé a été poursuivi pour cinq chefs d'accusation découlant d'une arrestation le 15 octobre 2014 : possession de cocaïne en vue d'en faire le trafic, possession de fentanyl en vue d'en faire le trafic, possession d'un bien obtenu de la perpétration d'une infraction, voies de fait contre un agent de la paix, et évasion de la garde légale.

Le tribunal a conclu que l'accusé était coupable de possession de cocaïne et de fentanyl en vue d'en faire le trafic, basant sa décision sur la quantité de stupéfiants, leur mode d'emballage, la somme d'argent en diverses coupures trouvée sur l'accusé, une liste de noms et de chiffres compatible avec une liste de dettes liée au trafic, et le témoignage d'un expert en drogues.

L'accusé a été acquitté de l'accusation de possession d'un bien obtenu de la perpétration d'une infraction.

Concernant les accusations de voies de fait et d'évasion, le tribunal a conclu que l'accusé avait résisté à l'arrestation mais n'avait pas commis les infractions plus graves alléguées.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The defendant brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from a search conducted incident to arrest, arguing the search violated section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on information from three reliable confidential informants.

The court further found that the search, conducted in a public parking lot, did not constitute a strip search as defined by the Supreme Court and was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual abuse of a child under 16 years of age: touching the complainant with his hand for a sexual purpose contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, and inviting the complainant to touch his penis contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant testified that the accused, a family friend, engaged in a pattern of escalating sexual touching during vehicle rides over approximately two years when she was between 7 and 8 years old.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant credible and accepted her evidence, finding the Crown proved the first count beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to prove the second count, as the complainant did not establish that the accused invited her to touch his penis specifically.

The accused was convicted on count one and acquitted on count two.

The accused was charged with assaulting a peace officer and obstructing a peace officer in the execution of their duty.

The charges arose from an incident on July 18, 2015, involving a neighbour dispute.

While police were arresting the accused's son for breach of the peace, the accused approached from behind and grabbed or pulled at the officer's vest.

The court found the accused not guilty of assault but guilty of obstruction, finding that the accused intentionally interfered with the arrest rather than accidentally losing his balance as claimed.

A child protection matter involving three children where the Children's Aid Society sought disposition orders following findings that the children were in need of protection.

The mother's relationship with a person with a serious criminal history and allegations of child sexual abuse posed significant risk to the children.

The mother repeatedly violated court orders by facilitating contact between the children and this individual.

The court granted sole custody of two older children to the father and made the youngest child a Crown ward without access, prioritizing continuity of care and the child's long-term stability and permanence.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that on May 9, 2014, the accused drove while impaired.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the investigation, alleging Charter breaches under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand, that the drug evaluation demand was made as soon as practicable, and that the accused's Charter rights were not infringed.

The court found the accused guilty based on evidence of impairment by both alcohol and drugs.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defendant was charged with attempted murder under s. 239 of the Criminal Code for an alleged assault on the complainant on August 18, 2014.

The Crown presented evidence of a brutal beating with a wooden board that resulted in serious injuries including a lacerated liver, broken ribs, broken arm, and head injury requiring a three-and-a-half-week coma.

The defendant did not testify but called one witness.

The central issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, or whether the evidence only supported a committal on the lesser charge of aggravated assault under s. 268 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant brought a Charter motion under sections 10(b) and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that she was not afforded contact with counsel of her choice and did not receive adequate legal advice.

The applicant was arrested for impaired driving and given her right to counsel.

She selected three lawyers from a provided list.

The police attempted to contact her first two choices without success and successfully connected her with her third choice, with whom she spoke for approximately eight minutes.

The applicant subsequently complained to police that the lawyer was rude and hung up on her, and that she received no advice.

The court found that the police took reasonable steps to facilitate contact with counsel of choice and that the applicant did not diligently and reasonably indicate that the advice received was inadequate.

A child protection application brought by the agency seeking custody orders for two children under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal, alternatively requesting return of the younger child and generous access to both children.

The court found both children to be in need of protection based on risk of physical and emotional harm, and made custody orders in favour of both fathers with supervised and unsupervised access provisions for the mother.

The case involved complex procedural issues, the mother's non-cooperation with assessments, and consideration of the children's wishes and best interests.

Walter Carter pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death (Dean Hancock Jr.), impaired driving causing bodily harm (Daniel Cassio), and breach of undertaking.

The accused had been charged with impaired driving in January 2014 and released on an undertaking not to consume alcohol.

Despite this condition, he consumed excessive alcohol at a festival on August 21, 2014, and subsequently drove his truck in the wrong direction on Highway 17, colliding head-on with the victim's vehicle and causing his death.

The court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment less pre-trial custody, with concurrent sentences on the other counts, a ten-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order.

A ruling on costs following a motion to vary parental access.

The applicant mother sought to relocate from Ontario to Alberta with the parties' two children to join her new partner who had secured employment.

The father opposed the relocation to preserve his existing access regime.

The court allowed the mother's motion to vary access to accommodate the relocation.

Subsequently, the parties negotiated a new access arrangement and child support adjustment.

The mother sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on her success on the dominant mobility issue and a formal offer to settle.

The father opposed costs or sought only partial indemnity recovery, arguing the case did not lend itself to settlement given the binary nature of the mobility issue.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a partial indemnity basis at a reduced amount, recognizing both parties' reasonable conduct and the collaborative resolution of collateral issues post-judgment.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control, operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(b), 11(e), and seeking remedies under sections 24(1) and 24(2).

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving and that the right to counsel was not violated.

However, the court found that the accused's detention for approximately 36 hours was arbitrary and unjustified under section 9 of the Charter.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy, finding that the cumulative effect of the detention duration and aggravating circumstances, combined with the absence of any explanation for the detention despite the accused's parents being present and willing to take him home, undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

The applicant brought a motion to stay a charge of care and control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, alleging a violation of her right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The total delay was approximately 27 months over two trial dates.

The court analyzed the delay in two phases and concluded that institutional delay fell within the Morin guidelines.

The applicant experienced some prejudice from the delay, but not sufficiently significant to warrant a stay.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2006 custody order, seeking custody of both children, supervised access, and child support.

The respondent father initially opposed the motion but on the trial date abandoned his positions on undue hardship and travel costs, agreeing to pay child support for one child.

The court ordered the father to pay child support for both children from September 2011 to April 2012 in staggered amounts, and ongoing support for one child from May 2012, plus monthly payments toward arrears.

The mother was successful in her application and awarded partial indemnity costs.

A bail hearing concerning a reverse onus matter where the accused was charged with 26 offences including kidnapping, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, dangerous driving, firearms offences, and possession of explosives.

The accused, facing serious personal and financial difficulties, allegedly kidnapped a city lawyer at gunpoint and held him in an industrial facility while demanding financial compensation.

The Crown sought detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court found the Crown's case strong and determined that the proposed sureties and plan of release were inadequate to address concerns regarding the accused's obsession with the complainant and weapons.

Detention was ordered on secondary grounds.